Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Petitioner appealed his conviction, but the Supreme Court refused the request to hear the appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a request for habeas corpus relief, alleging that both his trial counsel and his appellate counsel were ineffective. The circuit court denied the requested habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in finding that trial counsel effectively represented Petitioner; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying habeas corpus relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. View "State ex rel. Adkins v. Dingus" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and first degree arson involving a fire that killed his girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, inter alia, that (1) no error was committed in the way the preliminary hearing was conducted; (2) the circuit court did not err in striking a witness' testimony; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying a mistrial after a witness' testimony was found to be incorrect; (4) the circuit court did not err in allowing into evidence Defendant's statements to law enforcement that were given without Miranda warnings; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to dismiss the indictment because of spoliation of evidence; and (5) Petitioner's decision to testify on his on behalf was not coerced by the trial court.View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioners in these two consolidated appeals were convicted of sexual-related offenses. Both Petitioners were sentenced pursuant to section W. Va. Code 62-12-26, which provides for extended supervision of certain sex offenders. In each case, the lower courts modified Petitioners' supervised release and imposed additional sanctions pursuant to section 62-12-26(g)(3). The primary issue in the appeals was the constitutionality of the portion of section 62-12-26 that permits the revocation of supervised release and additional incarceration when a sex offender violates a condition of supervised release. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' orders in each case, holding (1) section 62-12-26(g)(3) does not violate constitutional principles of due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy; and (2) Petitioners' post-revocation sanctions were not constitutionally disproportionate to their underlying convictions. View "State v. Hargus" on Justia Law

Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence after his vehicle was stopped by a police officer responding to a telephone call and information obtained from an individual claiming she had observed the vehicle driving erratically. The Division of Motor Vehicles issued an order administratively revoking Respondent’s license. The Office of Administrative Hearings reversed Respondent’s license revocation, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officers had an articulable reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, and therefore the initial traffic stop was invalid and the resulting license revocation was improper. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that both the initial stop and the arrest were valid. Remanded for an order reinstating Respondent’s administrative license revocation. View "Dale v. Ciccone" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child and sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. Two years later, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, arguing that his former defense counsel was ineffective for failing to submit proper jury instructions on whether Petitioner was a “person in a position of trust” as to the victim and whether the victim was under Petitioner’s “care, custody, or control” at the time of the sexual encounter. The circuit court granted Petitioner’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to offer the instructions did not constitute deficient performance by counsel. View "Ballard v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of threatening to commit a terrorist act. Petitioner appealed the denial of his post-trial motions to dismiss or, alternatively, to acquit, arguing (1) the criminal offense set forth in W. Va. Code 61-6-24(b) is unconstitutionally vague, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the offense of threatening to commit a terrorist act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 61-6-24(b) is free from constitutional defect; but (2) because the threat prosecuted by the State in this case was not aimed at a branch or level of government, but solely at an individual police officer, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Defendant committed the felony offense at issue. View "State v. Yocum" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree for entering a Wendy’s restaurant and attempting to obtain money by holding a machete against the throat of a restaurant employee. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence of forty years in the penitentiary, holding (1) Defendant’s confession to the police was properly admitted at trial, as it was not given in violation of Defendant’s right to counsel, and the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary; and (2) the employee’s in-court identification of Defendant was properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Blackburn" on Justia Law

Following allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) brought a child abuse and neglect proceeding against Father and Mother (Petitioners). After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found that the children were abused and neglected, and, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the parental rights of Petitioners. Petitioners appealed, arguing that their procedural due process rights were violated when the out-of-court statements of two children were admitted to prove allegations of sexual abuse when Petitioners were not given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Petitioners’ parental rights, holding (1) in a child abuse and neglect civil proceeding held pursuant to W. Va. Code 29-6-2, a party does not have a procedural due process right to confront and cross-examine a child, and the circuit court shall exclude this testimony if it finds the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony; and (2) the circuit court adequately safeguarded Petitioners’ procedural due process rights in this case. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts contained in the affidavit used to obtain search warrants for Appellant’s home and car provided the magistrate with a sufficient basis to demonstrate probable cause of the issuance of the search warrants; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the ammunition and knives found at Appellant’s residence; (3) Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated when the trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion for a continuance; and (4) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

Richard and Linda Nease served a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request on the City of Nitro to inspect or copy certain public City records. The City granted the request in part but advised the Neases that the remaining documents would be subject to a search fee. The Neases then instituted a FOIA action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Neases, determining that the City ordinance providing for the imposition of a search fee was unlawful because W. Va. Code 29B-1-3 authorizes public bodies to collect the costs of copying requested records but does not sanction a search fee. The City appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the fees authorized in conjunction with FOIA production requests include the actual costs of reproduction as well as a search or retrieval fee, provided that any such fee is reasonable. View "King v. Nease" on Justia Law